Criticizing Holder is Not Racist

In a New York Timespiece ostensibly characterizing Eric Holder’s Justice Department tenure as tenacity in the face of partisan beligerence, the US Attorney General gives opponents the equivalent of manna from Heaven: “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him…both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Amidst the accumulating policy failures of a stimulus that failed to stimulate, Solyndra loans and ’Fast and Furious’ arms trades, the last thing the White House needed was an unforced error from one of its most high profile Cabinet members. Indeed, the comment helps to further the Holder narrative of being oblivious and tin-eared. Recall the 2010 congressional testimony in which he admitted to having not read Arizona’s immigration law before objecting to its contents.

Yet the beatings Holder has taken by Republican opponents have paled in comparison to those suffered by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, or Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke–the latter of whom Governor Rick Perry threatened to “treat pretty ugly” should he ever find himself in Texas. Surely none of those Administration officials believe themselves to be easy targets due to their being African-Americans—with nary an African-American among them, their policy missteps earn derision all on their own.

Aside from another ding in the Attorney General’s credibility, the quote plays right into the hands of the Fox News echo chamber, the audience of which has already been told that Holder had no interest in prosecuting cases of voter intimidation if committed by the New Black Panther Party. Is this really a narrative the White House wants to combat during a reelection fight?

What’s additionally instructive about Holder’s blunder is the way it offers a stark, microcosmic contrast between Obama the candidate and Obama the president; the old axiom of campaigning in poetry and governing in prose. Remember the 2008 meme ‘No Drama Obama’? Those days are far behind us, and we have plenty of high profile blunders to prove it. A failure by Holder is a failure by his boss. Is pointing out such failures implicit racism? Holder should ask Geithner, Chu and Bernanke. What the four share with each other–and the president–is failed policy initiatives, not race. And that’s certainly fair game for the Republican opposition.

If it had been video of Skinheads (or someone with a tri-corner hat) with a baton hurling slurs in front of a polling place, I’m sure you would have pleaded for similar leniency. Justice is supposed to be colorblind.

If it had been video of Skinheads (or someone with a tri-corner hat) with a baton hurling slurs in front of a polling place, I’m sure you would have pleaded for similar leniency. Justice is supposed to be colorblind.

Had it been in front of an all white suburban precinct in New Hampshire, it would have barely registered in the public consciousness. Particularly if, when police showed up and told them to move along, they did so.

The chance that there was anyone around the polling place who were actually intimidated by the Panthers … except for perhaps some white guys who didn’t live near there who wanted to come by to harrass and intimidate some black voters … was pretty close to miniscule.

+1. But also the piece is trying to portray Mr. Holder as saying that all attacks against him are because of his race ( an old meme used by racists to defang accusations).

But that is not what Mr. Holder said. He did not say he is attacked because he is African-American (as the piece and headline imply) but that their shared ethnicity is one reason he is identified with Mr. Obama (the other, and main one their relationship). Mr. Geitner may be criticized more but less as a stand-in for Mr.Obama.

You may not agree that Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama are identified together, but it is not unreasonable to conclude that people seeing two African-Americans friends or colleagues will be more likely to identify them together than two mixed race friends.

We do it all the time (Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, Reza Aslan and Fareed Zakaria, all the Blond Female Fox Anchors) we lump people together all the time in our mind due to shared characteristics. It is not really an astounding statement there.

Or a particularly self-pitying one.

Conservatives keep trying to find proof that all this discussion of racism is just a manipulative trick and that there really is no racism. Oh, they admit there is racism but amazingly it always happens to somebody other than the person objecting to it. That person is always a whiner.

Maybe you could say that this kind of strategy is not in itself racist, but it is not one ounce more noble, or morally acceptable.

Properly seen, the President is one of the bosses of the AG – who actually serves the Government as a whole.

It has been said that the attorney general serves “three masters”: the president, the Congress, and the courts (American Enterprise Institute 1968). Although the attorney general advises the president, the basic authority of the office is derived from Congress and the functions of the office are subject to congressional control. In addition, the attorney general is a member of the bar and therefore an officer of the court subject to the directives of the judicial branch.

I guess if I was really being racist I could say since all those Gunwalker guns were used to kill mainly Mexicans, who cares? But that scandal was more than just a public relations gaffe.

As well as Obama already has the civil rights vote as a given, Holder or not. But if he dumps Holder he might get some fence straddling moderates back. Jeez, this stuff happens all the time. Holder is a liability period

“Yet the beatings Holder has taken by Republican opponents have paled in comparison to those suffered by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, or Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke …”

This suggests you’re not familiar with what Holder’s talking about. Members of Congress have claimed that he’s a party to mass murder — is guilt of capital crimes –, and should be prosecuted as such. No other Cabinet member has been subjected to anything comparable. Moreover, The Fast and Furious story has, to an astonishing degree, been driven by leaks to bloggers who undeniably are from the racist fringe. None of this makes Holder’s comment any less maladroit, but let’s not ignore the facts of the matter.

Criticizing Holder is not racist, but a lot of the people criticizing Holder are racist, which leads us to ask ourselves (the non-racist, objective type) whether or not the complaints against Holder are resignation worthy.
Since I don’t gorge myself on right wing talk radio, someone will have to fill me in. Was Holder instrumental in the Fast and Furious planning or implementation? Did he cover for those involved in the planning and implementation?
If not, this is a blunder for sure, but clearly politics are what’s at stake, not anything more. The people calling for Holder’s head seemed just as raucous in their defense of Donald Rumsfeld, a blunder in his every action and idea, and that gives me pause.

In other words, if you agree with Sean Hannity, stop and think about what you’re doing, because it’s almost certainly stupid.

if you agree with Sean Hannity, stop and think about what you’re doing, because it’s almost certainly stupid.

Well, perhaps not almost certainly … but it is call to step back and question assumptions.

When one googles Eric Holder n***er, btw, you get 57,000 responses. Including some headlines as “Eric the n***er issues challenge to Texas on voter rights”, and “N***er Eric Holder perjured itself”, and “Eric Holder’s New Black Panthers turn on Obama ‘N***er Police Chief in the Lead’ “.

Given the pathetic history of Gonzo, and co; Holder is a mountain of integrity in the AG’s job. The hyperbole of the attacks on him has been at about the same level as those on the Kenyan, marxist, fascist, Hitler. Ie. ludicrous.

Yes, it is possible to be critical of Obama and Holder and not be racist. Sadly, most of the harshest critics of theirs that I hear locally also use the N word. Racists and conservatives may be different sets but the overlap is quite substantial.

Amidst the accumulating policy failures of a stimulus that failed to stimulate, Solyndra loans and….

I stopped reading at that point. If you have something worthwhile to say, don’t regurgitate a litany of right-wing talking points to start the article and expect people to stay with you till whatever intelligent point you’re trying to make.

[blockquote]
A rabid Tea Party wannabe politician in California called for the assassination of President Obama and his “monkey children” in a recent Facebook rant – and then defended his right to do so Monday.

Jules Manson, who failed miserably in his 2011 bid for a City Council seat in Carson, Calif., urged the sickening reprisal, saying Obama’s support of a revised military authorization bill last week was an act of “treason” that “eroded” constitutional protections.

“It must be countered with assassinations onto them and their children,” he wrote in the original posting that has since been scrubbed from his Facebook profile.

I’m just curious if you can put a name as to who blood libeled her. I think a lot of people, liberal and conservative alike, thought her language was reckless up to that point, and resented her insertion of herself into the tragedy, plus it provided a really opportune time to get rid of her.

Did I just blood libel her there? I mean, was that wrong of me to do? I know this is your thread hijack, but I need to know if I am a blood libeler.

WTF does “blood libeled” even mean? It sounds like a phrase created to try to agitate people and push up ratings. I’d love to know which right-wing nutter coined the phrase.

If what you’re trying to say is that there were Democrats who blamed her rhetoric for stirring up the Giffords shooter, then just f***ing say so. And then answer lilmanny’s question about who did it instead of just generally throwing around “Democrats”.

WTF does “blood libeled” even mean? It sounds like a phrase created to try to agitate people and push up ratings. I’d love to know which right-wing nutter coined the phrase.

Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) is a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims—alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration—have been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]

People who use the term in lieu of just libel show their ignorance. But of course, parroting Sarah Palin already suggests this. Of course they can always try to edit Wikipedia to support their perception in order to make reality fit their world view.

I agree. Palin had nothing to do with any of that, the guy was pure nuts and prolly didn’t even know who she was. However, the ex marine creep Kelly, who Gabby ran against, had a fundraiser at a shooting range where the donors got to shoot at Gabby’s picture with an AR 15 for a donation.

But then again, Palin was all but a pinup girl for the NRA. The moral of the story is guns have a bad karma so it is good to keep your distance from them.

Jay Gatsby, I live in South Carolina.
I read the comment sections of the state’s largest papers and had an ex-friend in the Tea Party.
Until you have read the comments about Obama and Holder and SC Rep. Jim Clyburn and seen the vile racist excrement that the Tea Partiers send across the www, you may not grasp just how intrinsic racism is to that movement, the right wing in general and anti-Obamism.

It ain’t all policy differences, baby. I think we see that in the way the R Congress changes positions when Obama comes down on their side. Hmmm, he might be able to manipulate that a little more…

Saying that, Holder needs to reflect on the Clinton Administration when Janet Reno took every hit for every screw up that FBI Director Louis Freeh made.
It really comes down to the right wing just having a helluva time adjusting to non-whites and women in certain jobs.

Point well taken NH, but do you seriously think that either Nikki Haley or Tim Scott would get any traction in SC were it not for the fact that they are both fundamentalist Christians? Do you think a non-fundamentalist black Republican like Gary Franks could ever be elected in SC?

And outside of SC, there is Allen West, Marco Rubio, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and so on, and so on, and so on. Stay tuned, more women and minorities who actually believe in freedom, limited government, fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility are sure to get on the Republican bandwagon in the coming years. Won’t THAT drive you victimization-mentality liberals absolutely nuts?

Kay Bailey Hutchison is perhaps your one reasonable example against my argument, though it should be pointed out that she decided to retire next year rather than face a religious right primary challenge that she (unfortunately) would have lost.

But your other examples don’t make any sense, seeing that they are all either (1) religious right types or (2) they have never been elected to anything, like Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas.

Btw: how on earth can you, without any apparent irony, point to Sarah Palin as an example of conservative authenticity, and then decry the politics of victimization? Palin has perfected the victimhood racket in a way that must surely make Jesse Jackson green with envy! (And also, is there a better example than Palin of the what the sentimental “self-esteem” movement of the 1980s has wrought?)

They are all simple minded right wing Christian conformist types: love God, guns, war, money. Hate taxes, gays, weirdos, deadbeats and furriners. It is like someone put some food dye in a batch of Wonder Bread and called it pumpernickel

Most Democrats couldn’t identify Eric Holder on Facebook, much less care about a botched ATF project, which started under George Bush. It’s manufactured outrage which you only know about if you watch Fox News.

Heh … even a news junkie like myself had to do some thinking last week when a big entourage of Secret Servicemen flooded the Austin barbeque restaurant I was at with some co-workers. I scanned the crowd of serious suited men, and it took a few moments for me to register that the VIP in their midst was Holder … in town to lecture at UT on the DOJ’s challenge to Texas’ abysmal gerrymandering plan.

Presidents dumping cabinet officers for various reasons is hardly scandalous or horrid. Holder is a liability and if Obama wants to win, he should give him the boot. Or Obama could be like W who stood 100% behind Rumsfeld b4 the 2006 elections, which costs the GOP. Then AFTER the election, he dumps Rummy.

Ahh … but on the other hand, one of the biggest threats to the Dems electoral successes in 2012 will be continuing actions by GOP governors and state houses to attempt to disenfranchise voters via various mechanations. And Holder is clearly committed to pushing back in that arena.

When you speak of “disenfranchisement,” please tell me you are not referring to laws that require voters to show i.d. at the polls.

And if you object to these laws because they prevent poor people who cannot afford i.d. from voting, then why don’t you lobby your legislator or congressman to propose a program to provide an i.d. card to people who can’t afford one. Such a program, coupled with voter i.d. requirements, would both maximize the franchise AND ensure the legitimacy of elections.

It’s not just the ability to pay for the ID, but having the correct set of documents on hand to be able to apply for the ID. Some folks don’t have the right set of documents, others can’t afford the replacement documents, others would have a hard time physically or financially getting to the proper offices…and on and on. Voting should be all rights be made easy to do as well as legitimate. That’s not what the current crop of GOP Secretaries of State and ALEC want, however. That idiot in Maine made it perfectly clear: prevent anyone voting for Democrats from being able to vote.

Okay, your point about some people being unable to afford a replacement birth certificate is well taken– so let us, I repeat, establish some kind of program to make these documents more affordable or even totally free of charge to the needy.

If everyone had equal access to i.d., would you still oppose the aforementioned laws?

If everyone had equal access to i.d., would you still oppose the aforementioned laws?

No, not as long as they were given out free so cost was not a contributing factor in determining the franchise and accessibility was equally available, such as being within walking distance, and as long as the paperwork required for the ID was minimal or open to a variety of documents. Think about old people who were born at home and have no birth certificate. Or people whose birth certificate has a name spelled differently than any of their current documents. Or kids who have no driver’s license but have school IDs.

I understand the desire to keep people who are not citizens from voting, but the motive behind these laws is not keep voting legal but to disenfranchise legal voters in order, as Rove said, to create permanent Republican majorities and administrations. ALEC has the proforma legislation on exactly how to do it.

Ah yes, to old republican trick of fixing what is not broken for their own electorial gain. Some of the states using the ID trick do not accept even driver’s licenses. A quick Google shows a range of 0.0009% to % 0.00004% voter fraud in some of the states passing these outrageous laws. Surely a rampant problem that MUST be fixed!

Sort of like how Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris “solved” the problem of ex-felons voting in Florida in 2000 by pre-purging voter rolls of anyone whose name was close to that of a felon, and letting them figure out that they needed to re-apply in advance of the elections or fill out a provisional ballot.

Criticizing Eric Holder is not racist. And, there are times Eric Holder could have said things differently. However, no matter what Holder said, Darrell Issa and the rest of the GOP are determined to go after him at least as agressively (perhaps twice as aggressively) as the Dems did Alberto Gonzales.

Fast & Furious is a serious problem and needs to be addressed seriously. I’m not sure the GOP is interested in addressing this issue, but rather trying to prove their muscle by ousting the AG.

As I said when initially discussing Rick Perry’s time vacationing at Ni**erhead Ranch, the important context here is that there is no racism in America. Or if there is, it certainly has nothing to do with white people. And certainly not with conservative white people. Glenn Reynolds offers the resentment checklist:

See, Perry’s not a racist. But if Perry did do anything racist, it’s because he used to be a Democrat (heh). Yet the real victims here are white people, and once upon a time Herman Cain looked like he might be a hero to the white race. Now we see, though, that he’s just another black politician being all “racist racist racist racist” to get ahead just like the rest of them. The fact that actual African-Americans, including African-Americans with deranged right-wing views on non-racial issues, find Perry’s conduct problematic is immaterial to Reynolds’ assessment of the situation. After all, since white conservatives are the primary victims of racism in contemporary America, who better than Reynolds to put Cain back in his place and tell him how it is?

And white conservatives surely aren’t responsible for the Austin Stateman having to delete/cease all commenting on a web site article in which the Texas DMV reported they unanimously agreed it was not a good idea to issue licences plate with the Confederate Battle Flag. No, it was probably nothing to do with any alleged racism that caused the Dallas Morning News to have to take that same action on the same subject when, as in Austin, the term “ni**ers” appeared with alarming frequency, but only with the same frequency as the death threats against DMV officials.

How about those attending Tea Party rallies packing heat? Where else do you see people carrying guns to political functions in this country? How may times has any other group whining that they will need to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights if they don’t get their way. The hypocrisy on the radical right knows no bounds.

Look at how the conservative journalists, bloggers, & activists who’d played important roles in the Fast & Furious story reacted to Holder’s comments. Seriously, read their reactions. Still think racism plays no role in their hatred of him?

1. This is beyond belief, even for this band of ni**ers.
2. Bush has been out of office nearly three plus years now, an dthese ni**ers STILL blame him.
3. Its just like a ni**er to place the blame on someone else.
4. A ni**er using the “Ize din do nuffins” excuse. Shocking, I tell you!
5. Putting this ni**er in charge of the entire US Dept of Justice – is like the vampire guarding the girls locker room.
6. Ni**ers are vile beasts, nothing more.
7. Ni**er should be charged for conspiracy to murder of the border guards
8. These are both ni**ers of the magic variety.
9. He’s a Ni**er. Any questions? :coffee
10. He said he would not prosecute any hate crimes committed against White people if the attackers were ni**ers. He also allowed ni**ers to get hired who could not pass police and fire fighter exams.
11. These ni**ers actually carry CARDS in their wallets that read: “The black man first, The party second” the country third”.

And these are from a sites where comments use mocking stereotypes and characatures of black people as their avatars to post comments. “Tuskeegee” was a choice avatar.

So, yeah, criticizing is not racist. Racist criticism **is** racist. The Republican **own** this element of America. They nurtured them to bring the votes in. Hardly the party of Lincoln, I’d say.

You, of course, have the option of dismissing what anyone can see by Googling the key words “Eric Holder ni**ger”. In fact, they first web site that rose to the top of the search query addressed the Fast & Furious issue and the *only* comments on that site **all** referred to Eric Holder as “ni**ger”. When you look for *any* comments on that site that do *not* have commenters calling Holder by that slur, there aren’t any! It was 100% “ni**er”.

On to the second site from the top. Seven out of eleven comments used the word *ni**er* to reference Holder.

Selective? No. You’re the one who is selective since you want to filter out that which you wish not to exist. That wish would be somewhat commendable of you if you weren’t trying to deliberately censor the inconvenient truth of the bigoty that defines the Republican Party. You have made your choice. Live with it.

Sorry, I’ve been to blogs where that’s the norm. I seldom stay, but about once a week I’ll pop over to WND for a bracing bit of lunacy just to see whats happening over on the Dark Side, and you’ll find that sort of verbiage all through the postings and comments. And those were actually not that bad – I’ve seen Michelle Obama called ‘the First Ape’, ‘the First Yeti’, or ‘Sasquatch’, and the children referred to as ‘pickaninnies’. Seriously, go on over and see for yourself . . .

The only signs of that mentality I’ve seen the last two years or so have come from the GOP side of the aisle. Along with lots and lots of whining. It’s getting so I can’t stand to listen to a Republican politician or pundit for all the “poor pitiful pearl/paul” whining and crying.

I doubt any other liberal lawyer would run Justice substantially different than Eric Holder runs it. Although I am reluctant to employ the overused and frequently misapplied R word, I do believe people who suggest Holder is biased simply because he’s Black are racists. What has he done that any other liberal would not do? It’s not likely he has done anything substantially different.

That said, Holder does seem to hold Blacks a little closer to his heart than other peoples. Contra some Holder critics, however, I don’t see that fact as very relevant to the ongoing assessment of Holder. It does not mean he is biased or unfair in executing the job.